OBJECTIVE: Traditionally, karyotype and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were used for cytogenetic testing of infants with congenital heart disease (CHD) who underwent cardiac surgery at our institution. Recently, chromosome microarray analysis (CMA) has been performed in lieu of the traditional tests. A standardized approach to cytogenetic testing does not exist in this population. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of CMA based on our current ordering practice. DESIGN: We reviewed the records of all infants (<1 year old) who underwent cardiac surgery at our institution from January 2010 to June 2013. Data included results of all cytogenetic testing performed. Diagnostic yield was calculated as the percentage of significant abnormal results obtained by each test modality. Patients were grouped by classification of CHD. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-five (51%) of 535 infants who underwent cardiac surgery had cytogenetic testing. Of those tested, 154 (56%) had multiple tests performed and at least 18% were redundant or overlapping. The utilization of CMA has increased each year since its implementation. The diagnostic yield for karyotype, FISH and CMA was 10%, 12%, and 14%, respectively. CMA yield was significantly higher in patients with septal defects (33%, P = .01) compared with all other CHD classes. CMA detected abnormalities of unknown clinical significance in 13% of infants tested. CONCLUSIONS: In our center, redundant cytogenetic testing is frequently performed in infants undergoing cardiac surgery. The utilization of CMA has increased over time and abnormalities of unknown clinical significance are detected in an important subset of patients. A screening algorithm that risk-stratifies based on classification of CHD and clinical suspicion may provide a practical, data-driven approach to genetic testing in this population and limit unnecessary resource utilization.
OBJECTIVE: Traditionally, karyotype and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were used for cytogenetic testing of infants with congenital heart disease (CHD) who underwent cardiac surgery at our institution. Recently, chromosome microarray analysis (CMA) has been performed in lieu of the traditional tests. A standardized approach to cytogenetic testing does not exist in this population. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of CMA based on our current ordering practice. DESIGN: We reviewed the records of all infants (<1 year old) who underwent cardiac surgery at our institution from January 2010 to June 2013. Data included results of all cytogenetic testing performed. Diagnostic yield was calculated as the percentage of significant abnormal results obtained by each test modality. Patients were grouped by classification of CHD. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-five (51%) of 535 infants who underwent cardiac surgery had cytogenetic testing. Of those tested, 154 (56%) had multiple tests performed and at least 18% were redundant or overlapping. The utilization of CMA has increased each year since its implementation. The diagnostic yield for karyotype, FISH and CMA was 10%, 12%, and 14%, respectively. CMA yield was significantly higher in patients with septal defects (33%, P = .01) compared with all other CHD classes. CMA detected abnormalities of unknown clinical significance in 13% of infants tested. CONCLUSIONS: In our center, redundant cytogenetic testing is frequently performed in infants undergoing cardiac surgery. The utilization of CMA has increased over time and abnormalities of unknown clinical significance are detected in an important subset of patients. A screening algorithm that risk-stratifies based on classification of CHD and clinical suspicion may provide a practical, data-driven approach to genetic testing in this population and limit unnecessary resource utilization.
Authors: Lorenzo D Botto; Angela E Lin; Tiffany Riehle-Colarusso; Sadia Malik; Adolfo Correa Journal: Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol Date: 2007-10
Authors: Javier H Gonzalez; Girish S Shirali; Andrew M Atz; Sarah N Taylor; Geoffrey A Forbus; Sinai C Zyblewski; Anthony M Hlavacek Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2008-12-11 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: Ashleigh A Richards; Lane Jaeckle Santos; Haley A Nichols; Bill P Crider; Frederick F Elder; Natalie S Hauser; Andrew R Zinn; Vidu Garg Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 3.756
Authors: J Burn; P Brennan; J Little; S Holloway; R Coffey; J Somerville; N R Dennis; L Allan; R Arnold; J E Deanfield; M Godman; A Houston; B Keeton; C Oakley; O Scott; E Silove; J Wilkinson; M Pembrey; A S Hunter Journal: Lancet Date: 1998-01-31 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Mary Ella Pierpont; Craig T Basson; D Woodrow Benson; Bruce D Gelb; Therese M Giglia; Elizabeth Goldmuntz; Glenn McGee; Craig A Sable; Deepak Srivastava; Catherine L Webb Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-05-22 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Michael L O'Byrne; Wei Yang; Laura Mercer-Rosa; Aimee S Parnell; Matthew E Oster; Yosef Levenbrown; Ronn E Tanel; Elizabeth Goldmuntz Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Andrew L Dailey-Schwartz; Hanna J Tadros; Mahshid Sababi Azamian; Seema R Lalani; Shaine A Morris; Hugh D Allen; Jeffrey J Kim; Andrew P Landstrom Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Kelsey McAfee; Will T Rosenow; Sara Cherny; Catherine A Collins; Lauren C Balmert; Gregory Webster Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2021-06-23 Impact factor: 1.655